© The Journal

Contemporary Management Research

2011, Vol.5, No. 2, 55-67.

Quality of Work Life and its impact on

Organisational Excellence in Small Scale
Industrial Units: Employers Perspectives
A Stephen D Dhanapal
KPR School of Business, KPR School of Business,
Coimbatore, India Coimbatore, India

ABSTRACT

The existence of quality of work life in organisation is beneficial to both employers

and employees. There are many studies on QWL regarding employees’ perspectives.
But there are not much of studies dealing with employers perspectives, especially in
the Indian context in Small Scale Industrial units. The present study is an attempt in
that direction. The sample consists of 317 un its of various Small Scale Industrial units
in Chennai, Coimbatore and Madurai cities in Tamil Nadu. The list of industrial units
was acquired from District Industrial Centre of these cities and units were chosen at
random. The Questionnaire was designed based on the attributes and variables of QWL
reviews and questionnaire from previous studies. The constituted variables of the
questionnaire were subjected to construct validity and discriminant validity. The study
reveals the important QWL factors and employers perception on variables in
organisational excellence in there major cities of Tamilnadu. The study found out the
influencing QWL factors on organisational excellence. The level of perception on
organisational excellence among employers is higher in Coimbatore than Chennai and
Madurai cities.

Keywords: Quality of worklife, Organisational Excellence, Quality of worklife factors,

employers, Small Scale Industrial units.

INTRODUCTION Mullins, (1996). The earliest reference of the

term QWL made its appearance in 1973 at the
The foundation of a great business are the
Fourty-third American Assembly on the chang-
people who work their everyday. Organizations
ing world of work at Colombia University’s
are required to maintain high level of QWL in
Arden House in New York. The select partici-
order to maintain high level of organizational
pants assembled their concluded in their final
excellence when factors of QWL are found to be
remarks that improving the place, the organi-
in a satisfied level, it leads to a highly satisfied
sation and the nature of work can lead to a
level of factors of Organisational excellence
better work performance and a better quality
Subba Rao & Neelima Alfred, (2003). The term
of life in the society Herman Gadon, (1984).
“Quality of Work Life” (QWL), varies in meaning
among practioners and academicians. QWL is
In India, the concept of QWL evolved in mid
associated with opportunity for individuals and
1970’s when the country was witnessing
teams to influence their workplace. Steers &
intense labor unrest. Here, QWL manifested
Porter, (1983). Quality of Work Life may be
in the term of work/job redesign due to the
perceived as a philosophy, a process or a goal
influence of socio - technical approach of the
 56 The Journal - Contemporary Management Research
Tavistock Institute of Human Relations Saklani,
(2010). After experiencing a lull in the late
1970’s, QWL become prominence again due to
the successful projects of General Motors and
Volvo in United States and Germany. The term
QWL gained broader scope, which includes the
general objective of arranging organisations,
management procedures and jobs for maximum
utilization of individual talents and skills to create
more challenging and satisfying work and
improve organisational effectiveness. Jenkins,
(1981).
The relevance of QWL to an employee is
enhanced life style and opportunity for growth
and development. The relevance of QWL to an
employer lies in enhanced employee motivation
and performance leading to organisational
excellence. Improving the employees Quality of
Work Life may have many positive influences
on the organizations ultimate performance Elizur
& Shye, (1990); Greenberg & Baron, (1997);
Nykodym et al (1991).
NEED FOR THE STUDY
Two factors are perceived as important
factors to help any organist survive in the market
place. First is the company’s ability to adapt to
the changing needs of market and second is the
ability to creatively make use of people manage-
ment and motivation skills Becker & Gerhart,
(1996). Various studies and researches have
been carried out, which states the association
between QWL and numerous positive outcomes
on people and the organisation. The present
study aims to analyze the employers perception
on QWL in Small Scale Industrial Units. The
contribution of small scale industrial units to the
economy of our nation is tremendous. Its contri-
bution in total industrial output is 39.42 percent,
35 percent share in exports, 6.71 percent in
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and provides
September
employment to about 27.14 million percents
Ministry of SSI, (2004 - 05). By considering the
importance of QWL to the employee and the
organisation and significance of SSI units to
the economy of our nation, it is imperative to
study the employers perspective on QWL as
they are the prime stakeholders to decide upon.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The issues related to QWL are pay and
stability of employement, occupational stress,
organisational health programmes, alternative
work schedule, participative management and
control of work, recognition, superior-subordi-
nate relations, grievance procedure, adequacy
of resources, seniority and merit in promotion
and development and employment on perma-
nent basis. Klatt, Murdick & Schuster, (1985).
The efforts of improving the QWL leads to
increased morale and satisfaction for employ-
ees, whose work has been humanized
Abraham Enthemkuzhy, (1989). Improve-
ment in QWL leads to numerous gains. It leads
to improved job satisfaction and involvement
of employees. The society as a whole might
gain from QWL. It might help government
combat few social problems like unrest in
society, mental health problems, drug and
alcohol abuse and inequitable distribution of
national income Hackman & Suttle, (1977).
Plants that are functioning on QWL principles
are found to be more effective than tradition-
ally managed plants Lawler, (1978).
Employers can expect to see reduction in
minor accidents, grievance, absentee and
turnover rates with the installation and institu-
tionalization of QWL process Stephen, J.
Havlovic, (1991). Implementation of QWL
programmes result in improved worker satis-
faction, commitment and performance Nadler
 2011 Stephen and Dhanapal
Figure 1 Employers perspectives on QWL and its impact on Organisational
Excellence
& Lawler, (1983). High level of QWL has been
found to be associated with high level of Job
satisfaction on many aspects of working life
Wilcock & Wright, (1991). QWL is found to be a
significant predictor of organisational commit-
ment of managers. Anuradha & Pandey, (1995).
Differing with the traditional emphasis on capital,
technology and long-lived products, today’s
source of competitive advantage are high-quality
products that can only be maintained through
high-quality personnel. Caudron, (1994). The
future of successful and healthy company’s are
not going to be shaped by their CEO’s alone,
but by all members of the work force Wong &
Kleiner, (1996). Healthy companies might be
described as ones that encourage the physical,
mental and spiritual aspects of humans Topolo-
sky, (2000). Companys’ values are increasingly
being driven by employees and their ideas, as
opposed to hard assets. Zimmerman, (2001).
PROPOSED RESEARCH MODEL
The proposed Research Model attempts to find
out the employers perspectives on the existence
of QWL factors in their Small Scale Industrial
units and also to determine the impact of QWL
factors on Organisational Excellence.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
Based on the proposed research model, the
objectives of the study are
57
1. To identify important QWL factors among
the employers.
2. To evaluate the impact of QWL on Organ-
isational Excellence.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Quality of Work Life has been defined as
better jobs and more balanced ways of com-
bining working life with personal life. Euro-
found, (2011). QWL was associated with
satisfaction with wages, working hours and
working conditions. The key elements of ‘good
quality of work life’ is described as safe work
environment, equitable wages, equal employ-
ment opportunities and opportunities for
advancement Mirvis & Lawler, (1984). The
indicators of Quality of Work Life includes job
satisfaction, job involvement, work-role ambi-
guity, work-role conflict, work-role overload,
job stress, organizational commitment and
turn-over intentions. Baba & Jamal, (1991).
The concept of QWL is multi dimensional and
may not have universal meaning. The key
concepts of QWL include job security, reward
systems, pays and opportunity for growth.
Rossi et al, (2006). Other studies carried on
Quality of work life includes employment
conditions, employment security, income ade-
quacy, profit sharing, equity and other
rewards, employee autonomy, employee com-
mitment, social interaction, self-esteem, self-
expression, democracy, employee satisfac-
 58 The Journal - Contemporary Management Research September

tion, employee involvement, advancement, rela-
tions with supervisors and peers and job
enrichment, as major constituents. Chander &
Singh, (1993). By mean, of literature survey,
eight areas are identified as related to QWL.
They are coworker and supervisor support,
teamwork and communication, job demands and
decision authority, patient/resident care, charac-
teristics of the organisation, compensation and
benefits, staff training and development and
overall impressions of the organisation. David
et al, (2001). Most of the authors cite QWL
issues as centered on worker related topics such
as job redesign, joint labor-management com-
mittees, flexible working hours, conflict resolu-
tion techniques and gain sharing plans. Janet,
L. Della, Guistina & Daniel, E. Della, Guistina,
(1989).
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A research design is the overall plan or program
of research. A research design is the arrange-
ment of conditions for collection and analysis of
data in a manner that aims to combine rele-
vance to the research purpose with economy
in procedure. In fact, the research design is
the conceptual structure within which the
research is conducted to constitute the blue
print for the collection, measurement and
analysis of data. The research design of the
present study is descriptive in nature. Since
the present study has made an attempt to
identify the employers perspectives on the
existence of important QWL factors in SSI
units and also the impact of QWL factors on
organisational excellence among employers
in SSI units, it is descriptive in nature.
SAMPLING PROCEDURE
The total sample size of the present study is
arbitrarily assigned as one percent of the
population. Hence, the sampled SSI units in
Chennai, Coimbatore and Madurai came to
321, 504 and 202 units respectively. The
address of the above said units had been
collected from the respective District Industrial

Table 1: Important QWL factors (QWLFs) in the SSI Units

S. No. QWL Fs Number of Eigen Percent of Cumulative
Variables in value Variable Percent of
explained Variation
explained
1 Social Support 8 3.651 9.362 9.362
2 Inter – Personal Relationship
6 3.522 9.029 18.391

3 Recognition 5 2.573 6.598 24.99

4 Autonomy 6 2.258 5.788 30.778
5 Working Environment 2 2.152 5.518 36.296
6 Relationship with boss 3 1.866 4.785 41.082
7 Working hours 3 1.851 4.746 45.827
8 Governance by Rule of law
2 1.781 4.566 50.393

9 Role charity 2 1.769 4.536 54.929

10 Fringe benefits 2 1.28 3.282 58.211
 2011 Stephen and Dhanapal 59

Centres. The questionnaire had been sent to all CONSTRUCT DEVELOPMENT

SSI units. The response from the SSI units at
In the present study, attributes were generated
Chennai, Coimbatore and Madurai were
from the previous studies related to QWL. The
176,136 and 124 units respectively. Since the
generated attributes were consolidated, the
study focuses on the employers’ perspective on
repetition in attributes, similar attributes and
QWL at SSI units, the SSI units who had
unclear attributes were deleted from the list of
completed the questionnaire (employers) had
attributes. The attributes which are mutually
been included for further analysis. Hence, the
by exclusive were consolidated. The QWL
included employers from each SSI units in
factors in the present study are identified from
Chennai, Coimbatore and Madurai came to 107,
the variables listed by Saklani (2003). A
100 and 110 SSI units respectively. Hence, the
pre-test was conducted among 30 employers.
applied sampling procedure is purposive sam-
Based on the feed back from pre-test, certain
pling.

Table 2 Discriminant QWL Factors among the employers in three Cities

Mean Score among Employers in

three cities standardised
S.
QWLF f-statistics discriminant
No Chennai Coimbatore Madurai coeffficient

1 Social support 3.503 3.363 3.084 2.708 0.089

Inter – Personal
2 3.64 3.254 3.001 3.178* 0.246*
relationship
3 Recognition 3.621 3.786 3.017 3.096* 0.114
4 Autonomy 3.444 3.903 3.346 2.108 0.103
Working
5 3.669 3.814 3.017 3.308* 0.266*
environment
Relationship with
6 3.737 3.808 2.969 3.266* 0.289*
boss
7 Working hours 3.814 3.681 3.099 3.514* 0.170*
Governance by
8 3.508 3.767 2.858 3.140* 0.109
rule of Law
9 Role clarity 3.66 3.899 3.099 1.456 0.096
10 Fringe Benefits 3.818 3.703 2.656 3.734* 0.121
Cluster Size (in
33.75 31.55 34.7 – –
percentage)
Eigen value 4.186
Percent of
variation 83.45
explained
Canonical
0.862
correlation
* Significant at Five percent level
 60 The Journal - Contemporary Management Research September

Figure 2 Impact of QWL factors on the organisational excellence as per employers view

modifications and additions and deletions have
been carried out. The final draft of the question-
naire has been used to collect the primary data.
The collected data has been processed with the
help of appropriate statistical tools.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
explained by each QWL factor have been
computed. The variables included in each
QWL factor have been identified with the help
of its factor loading in the factor compared to
factor loading with other factors. The resulted
QWL factors, its eigen value and percent of
variation explained by each factor are pre-
sented in table 1.

Important QWL factors in SSI Units The most important QWL factor is social
support since its eigen value and the percent
The executed EFA results in ten QWL factors.
of variation explained by it are 3.651 and 9.362
The eigen value and percent of variation
percent respectively. The next three important
Figure 3 Level of perception on existence of QWL factors among
the employers in three cities.
 2011 Stephen and Dhanapal 61

Table 3 - Variables in Organisational Excellence among employers in Major Cities

S. Mean Score among employers in

Variables ‘F’ statistics
No Chennai Coimbatore Madurai
Clear cut Criterion of
1 3.654 3.924 3.354 2.454
Performance
Return on
2 3.714 3.667 3.608 0.886
Investment
Consistent
3 achievement over a 3.802 3.713 3.345 1.89
long period of time
Little pressure by
4 3.667 3.966 3.508 1.599
way of competition
Commitment to
5 3.731 3.99 3.214 2.996*
pioneering
Dedication in Social
6 3.289 3.85 3.066 3.024*
mission
Outstanding
7 3.67 3.989 3.334 2.764
Progress
Overall Mean score 3.647 3.871 3.347
Overall reliability: 0.844

QWL factors are inter personal relationship,
recognition and autonomy since its eigen values
are 3.522, 2.573 and 2.258 respectively. The
percent of variation explained by these QWL
factors are 9.029, 6.598 and 5.788 respectively.
The next three QWL factors identified by the
EFA are working environment, relationship with
boss and working hours since its eigen values
are 2.152, 1.866 and 1.851 respectively. The
percent of variation explained by these QWL
factors are 5.518, 4.785 and 4.746 respectively.
The last three QWL factors identified by the EFA
are governance by rule of law, role clarity and
fringe benefits since their respective eigen
values are 1.781, 1.769 and 1.280. The percent
of variation explained by the above three QWL
factors are 4.566, 4.536 and 3.282 percent
respectively. In total, the narrated 10 QWL
factors explain the QWL variables to the extent
of 58.211 percent. The EFA result in 10 QWL
factors, is presented in the following table for
further discussion.
Discriminant QWL factors among the
employers in three cities
It is essential to analyse the significant differ-
ence among the employers in three cities
namely Chennai, Coimbatore and Madurai
regarding their perception on QWL factors.
The level of perception on QWL factors among
the employers in three major cities are shown
in figure 2.
The identification of important discriminant
QWL factors among the three group of
employers for some policy implications. The
one way analysis of variance and multiple
discriminant analysis have been applied for
this purpose. The results are given in table 2.
The significant difference among the three
group of employers have been noticed in the
perception on inter personal relationship,
recognition, working environment, relationship
with boss, working hours, governance by rule
of law, and fringe benefits since there respec-
 62 The Journal - Contemporary Management Research September

Table 4 - Impact of QWL factors on the organisational excellence as per employers view

Regression Co efficient among employers in

S. No QWL Factors
Chennai Coimbatore Madurai Pooled Data

1 Social support 0.102 0.164* –0.024 0.102

2 Inter Personal relationship 0.164* 0.180* 0.096 0.144*

3 Recognition 0.140* 0.241* 0.162* 0.170*

4 Autonomy 0.099 0.144* –0.041 0.071

5 Working environment 0.133* 0.102 0.113 0.102
6 Relationship with boss 0.133* 0.096 –0.096 0.081
7 Working hours 0.094 0.088 0.162* 0.091
8 Governance by rule of law 0.154* 0.102 –0.044 0.113

9 Role Clarity 0.077 0.099 0.091 0.08

10 Fringe benefits 0.102 0.124 0.188* 0.144*

Constant 1.234 0.584 0.944 1.086

R2 0.764 0.791 0.744 0.814

‘F’ Statistics 8.408* 9.380* 8.177* 11.254*

tive ‘F’ statistics are significant at five percent
level. The significant discriminators among the
employers in the three cities are their perception
on interpersonal relationship, working environ-
ment, relationship with boss and working hours
since their discriminant coefficients are signifi-
cant at five percent level. The powerful discrim-
inators are relationship with boss and inter
personal relationship since their discriminant
coefficients are higher. The estimated multi
discriminant analysis justifies its validity since
their eigen values, percent of variation explained
and canonical correlation are greater than its
respective minimum threshold.
Organisational excellence among
employers in major cities
Organisational excellence refers to surpassing
an outstanding achievement. In todays compet-
itive world, every organisation is striving to excel
in performance with minimum resources and
want to reap maximum benefit. Excellence in
any regard is required for society, as it stipu-
lates the standard as benchmark. Every
organisation put efforts to overcome the exist-
ing standard resulting in excellence. The
individual as well as the country and the world
thrives because of excellence. Organisational
learning is an important asset that an organi-
sation has to possess as that of individual
learning. Such learning makes the organisa-
tion strong. In the organisational context,
these are various factors contributing to its
excellence. In the present study, seven organ-
isational variables have been taken into con-
sideration.
The one way analysis of variance have been
executed to analyse the significant difference
among employer in Chennai, Coimbatore and
Madurai city regarding their level of organisa-
 2011 Stephen and Dhanapal
tional excellence. The results are given in table
3.
The significant difference among the three
groups of employers have been noticed in the
perception on commitment to pioneering and
dedication to social mission, since their respec-
tive ‘F’ statistics are significant at five percent
level. The overall reliability (0.8441) reveals that
the included seven variables explain it to the
extent of (84.41) percent. The analysis reveals
that the level of perception on organisational
excellence among employers is higher in Coim-
batore than Chennai and Madurai.
Impact of qwl factors on the organisa-
tional excellence as per employers
view
The presence of QWL factors in the organisation
benefits both employers and employees. Its
presence in the organisation leads to numerous
gains. Among the resources in the organisa-
tions, people resources are very important. It is
the people who creates and work on the other
resources. Investing in people and implementing
quality of work life at the organisation would lead
to superior performance of both the individual
and the organisation. The existence of QWL in
organisation would benefit all the stakeholders
of the organisation.
The impact of QWL factors on the organisational
Excellence may have its own influence on the
score on Organisational Excellence at the units.
The present study has made an attempt to
analyse the impact with the help of multiple
regression analysis. The fitted regression model
is
63
Y = a+b1x1 + b2x2 + b3x3 + b4x4 + b5x5 +
b6x6 + b7x7 + b8x8 + b9x9 + b10x10+e
Whereas y represents the Score on organisa-
tional excellence among the employers and
X1 to X10 shows the perception on QWL factors
among employers.
The Impact has been measured among the
employers in different cities namely Chennai,
Coimbatore and Madurai and also for pooled
data. The results are given in table 4.
The Significantly and positively influencing
QWL factor on the score on organisational
excellence among the employers in Chennai
are interpersonal relationship. recognition,
working environment, governance by rule of
law since their regression coefficients are
significant at five percent level. A unit increase
in the level of the above said QWL factor
would result in an increase in score on organ-
isational excellence at the SSI units among
the employers by 0.164, 0.140, 0.133 and
0.154 units respectively. The R2 represents
the changes in the QWL factors, explaining
the changes in score on ‘Organisational excel-
lence’ to the extent of 76.46 percent.
The significantly and positively influencing
QWL factor on the score on organisational
excellence among the employers in Coim-
batore are social support, interpersonal rela-
tionship, recognition and autonomy Since their
regression coefficients are significant at five
percent level. A unit increase in the level of
above said QWL factor would result in an
increase in score on organisational excellence
at SSI units among the employers by 0.164,
0.180, 0.241 and 0.144 units respectively. The
 64 The Journal - Contemporary Management Research
R2 represents the changes in the QWL factors,
explaining the changes in score on organisa-
tional excellence to the extent of 79.17 percent.
The significantly and positively influencing QWL
factor on the score on ‘Organisational excel-
lence’ among the employers in Madurai are
recognition, working hours and fringe benefits
since their regression coefficients are significant
at five percent level. A unit increase in the level
of above said QWL factor would result in an
increase in score on ‘Organisational excellence’
at SSI units among the employers by 0.1622,
0.1622 and 0.1884 units respectively. The R2
represents the changes in the QWL factors,
explaining the changes in score on organisa-
tional excellence to the extent of 74.42 percent.
The Significantly and positively influencing QWL
factor on the score on ‘Organisational excel-
lence’ among the employers in pooled data are
interpersonal relationship, recognition and fringe
benefits since their regression coefficients are
significant at five percent level. A unit increase
in the level of above said QWL factors would
result in an increase in score on ‘Organisational
excellence’ at SSI units among the pooled data
by 0.1449, 0.1708 and 0.1441 units respectively.
The R2 represents the changes in the QWL
factors, explaining the changes in score on
‘Organisational excellence’ in pooled data to the
extent of 81.42 percent.
RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
The findings of the present study regarding
perception of employers on QWL factors,
revealed ten important QWL factors in SSI units.
These are social support, interpersonal relation-
ship, recognition, autonomy, working environ-
ment, relationship with boss, working hours,
September
governance by rule of law, role clarity and
fringe benefits, which replicates to a greater
extent the findings of the meta-analysis con-
ducted by Blegen (1993) and Knox & Irving
(1997). The present study revealed that QWL
factors namely interpersonal relationship,
recognition, working environment, Gover-
nance by rule of law, social support, auton-
omy, working hours and fringe benefits has
got positive and significant influence on organ-
isational excellence. These facts replicates the
findings of Hian & Einstein, (1990), Nachmias
(1988), Carlson (1980), Guest (1979), Suttle
(1977), Waltonn(1974).
The findings of the study that QWL as the main
proponent of organisational excellence was
reinforced by the study of Allen & Loseby
(1993), Meyer & Cooke, (1993) and Bassi &
Vanburen, (1997). The outcome of the present
study that improvement in QWL has definite
scope for improvement in productivity and
organisational excellence replicates the find-
ings of cherns, (1975), Lawler (1978), Lawler
and Ledford (1982) and Buchanan & Boddy
(1982).
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
The result of this study was intended to assist
policy makers, decision makers in identifying
key work place issues, as perceived be
employers and employees, in order to develop
strategies to address and develop quality of
work life conditions for the employees.
Ten important QWL factors have emerged as
a result of analysis in the present study. The
most important QWL factor is social support,
followed by interpersonal relationship and
recognition. The presence of these QWL
factors in organisation, enhances employees
 2011 Stephen and Dhanapal
job satisfaction, which are positively related to
organisational performance. People are the
prime resource of any organisation. The organ-
isation may boast of superior strategy, technol-
ogy, infrastructure, systems and process but all
these are created by people and will be institu-
tionalized by people. Many organisations spend
huge sum of money on process improvement
and reorganization. But they fail to spend on
hidden value in a company, that is usally thought
of as soft, against hard assets. Company’s value
is increasingly driven by employees and their
ideas, as opposed to hard assets. It is worth
spending on human assets, to create sustained
growth of organisation. It could be achieved by
ensuring people development.
There should be well established systems and
process for all the activities in the organision,
like recruitment and selection, performance
appraisal, compensation, promotion, grievance
redressal etc., Existence of such systems pro-
vides clarity to the employees and they are well
aware, what is expected of them. Presence of
such systems also conveys the opinion to the
employees that the management is transparent
and fair in all its activities. The employees will
be motivated to act and behave objectively and
they will enhance their performance to accom-
plish organisational objectives than to please
the individuals or superiors. Such systems would
help the new recruits of the organisation to align
themselves with organisation’s philosophy and
enhances company’s performance. A step taken
in this direction, would create a learning and
purpose driven organisation.
CONCLUSION
The present study examined employers per-
spective on Quality of Work Life and Organisa-
tional excellence in Small Scale Industrial units.
65
The important QWL factors among employers
were identified. The employers views on
organisational excellence were measured with
the help of 7 variables and the impact of QWL
factors on organisational excellence was
ascertained. There findings would assist the
policy makers in drawing out their plan for the
development of the workforce and the indus-
trial units.
SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The present study found out the important
QWL factors among employers and their
perspectives on Organisational excellence.
Similar studies may be pursued considering
the outcome factor such as employee motiva-
tion, employee retention, employee perfor-
mance and employer leadership style. The
study may be extended to various sectors of
SSI units and also encompass greater geo-
graphical location.
REFERENCES
Abraham Enthemkuzhy, 1989. A Study of the
Human Resource Development practices in
Indian Organisations, unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Gujarat University.
Allen, P., & Loseby, P.H. 1993. No Lay off policies
and corporate financial performance, SAM
Advance Management Journal, 58(1): 44-8.
Anuradha, S., & Pandey, P.N. 1995. Organizational
Commitment and QWL: Perception of Indian
Managers, Abbigyan, Summer: 39-77.
Baba, V.V., & Jamal. M. 1991. Routinization of
Job context and job content as related to
employees’ Quality of working life: A study of
Canadian Nurses, Journal of Organisational
Behaviour, 12(5): 379-386.
 66 Stephen and Dhanapal
Bassi, L.J., & Vanburen, M.E. 1997. Sustaining high
performance in bad times, Training and
Development, 51(6): 31-42.
Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. 1996. The impact of human
resource management on organisational
performance: progress and prospects, Academy
of Management Journal. 39(4): 779 - 801.
Blegen, M. 1993. Nurses Job satisfaction: a meta-
analysis of related variables, Nurse Research,
42: 36-41.
Buchanan, D.A., & Boddy, D. 1982. Advanced
technology and the Quality of working life: The
effect of work processing on Video Typists,
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 55(1):
1-11.
Carlson, H.C. 1980. A model of Quality of work life as
a development process, In Bruke, W.W. and
Goodstien, L.D., (Eds), Trends and Issues in
organisational Development: Current Theory
and Practices, San Diego, CA: University
Associates.
Caudron, S. 1994. HR Leaders Brainstorm the
Profession's Future, Personnel Journal. 73(8):
54-61.
Chander, Subash & Singh, Parampal 1983. Quality
of work life in a University: An Empirical
Investigation, Management and Labour
Studies, 18(2): 97-101.
Cherns, Albert, B. 1975. Perspectives on the Quality
of working life, Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 48(3): 155 -168.
David Lewis, Kevin Braizil, Paul Krueger, Lynne
Lohfeld & Erin Tjam. 2001. Extrinsic and intrinsic
determinants of Quality of work life, Leadership
in Health services,14(2): 9-15.
Elizur, D., & Shye, S. 1990. Quality of Work Life and
its relation to quality of life, Applied Psychology:
An International Review. 39(3): 275-291.
September
Greenberg, J., & Baron, R.A. 1977. Behaviour in
Organisations. Sixth edition. New Jersey:
Prentice - Hall, Inc.
Guest, R.R. 1979. Quality of work life – Learning
from Terry town, Harvard Business Review,
57(4): 76-87.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. 1980. Work
Redesign, Readings, MA: Addision-Wesley
Havlovic, SJ. 1991. Quality of work life and Human
resource outcomes, Industrial Relations,
30(3): 469-479.
Herman Gadon 1984. Making sense of Quality of
work life programs, Business Horizons, 27(1):
42-46.
Hian, C.C., & Einstein, W.O. 1990. Quality of work
life: What can unions do, Advanced
Management Journal,55(2): 17-22.
Janet, L., Della-Guistina & Daniel, E., Della-
Guistina 1989. Quality of work life programs
through employee motivation, Professional
Safety, 34(5): 24.
Jenkins, D. 1981. QWL, Current Trends and
Directions, Vol. 3, Ontario Ministry of Labour,
Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre.
Klatt, Murdick & Schuster. 1985. Human Resource
Management, Ohio: Charter E. Merrill
publishing company.
Knox, S., & Irving, J.A. 1997. An interactive quality
of work life model applied to organizational
transition, Journal of Nursing
Administration, 27(1): 39-47.
Lau, R.S.M., & May, B.E. 1998. A Win-Win
paradigm for Quality of work life and business
performance, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 9(3): 211-26.
Lawler, E.E. 1978. The New plant Revolution,
Organisational Dynamics, 6(3): 2-12.
 2011 Stephen and Dhanapal
Lawler, III, E.E., & Ledford, G.E. 1982. Quality of
working life and productivity, National
Productivity Review, 1(1): 23-36.
Meyer, D.G. & Cooke, W.N. 1993. US labor
legislations in transition: emerging strategies and
company performance, British Journal of
Industrial relations, 31(4): 531-52.
Mirvis, P.H. & Lawler, E.E. 1984. Accounting for the
Quality of Work Life. Journal of Occupational
Behaviour, 197-212.
Mullins, L.J. 1996. Management and Organisational
Behaviour. Fourth edition. London: Pitman
publishing.
Nachmias, D., 1988. The Quality of work life in the
federal bureaucracy: conceptualization and
measurement, American Review of Public
Administration, Vol. 18(2): 167-73.
Nadler, AD., & Lawler III, Edward E. 1983. Quality of
Work Life, Perspectives and Directions,
Organisation Dynamics, Winter: 20-30.
Nykodym, N., Longenecker, C.O., & Ruud, W.N.
1991. Improving quality of work life with
transactional analysis as an intervention change
strategy, Applied Psychology: An
International Review. 40(4): 395-404.
Rossi, A.M., Perrewee, P.L., & Sauter. S.L. 2006.
Stress and Quality of Working life, Greenwich:
Information Age Publishing.
Saklani, D.R. 2003. Quality of work life : Instrument
design, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,
38(4): 480-503.
Saklani, D.R. 2010. Non-managerial Perspective of
Quality of Work Life, Journal of Management
Research, 10(2): 87-102.
Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. 1983. Employee
Commitment to organisation. In R.M., Steers and
67
L.W., Porter(Eds), Motivation and Work
Behaviour (3rd Ed): McGraw Hill.
Subba Rao, P., & Neelima Alfered. G. 2003.
Quality of Work Life and Organizational
Excellence, GITAM Journal of Management,
1(1): 51-60.
Suttle, J.L. 1977. Improving life at work: problems
and prospects, in Hackman, J.R. & Suttle, J.L.,
(Eds), Improving life at work: Behavioural
Science Approach to organisational
change, Santa Monica, CA: Good year
publishing company.
Taylor, J.C., & Bowers, D. 1972. Survey of
organisations: A Machine scored
Standardization instrument, Institute of
social Research, University of Michigan: Ann
Arbor.
Topolosky, P.S. 2000. Linking Employee
Satisfaction to Business Results. In, Bruchey,
S. , Garland Studies on Industrial
Productivity. London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Walton, R.E. 1974. Improving the Quality of work
life, Harvard Business Review, 12: May-Jun.
Wilcock, A., & Wright, M. 1991. Quality of Work Life
in the Knitwear sector of the Canadian Textile
Industry, Public Personnel Management,
20(4), Winter: 457-468.
Wong, A., & Kleiner, B.H. 1996. Empowerment in
Today's Business Paradigm is a competitive
Must, Management Decision. 34(5): 7-8.
Zimmerman, E. 2001. What are employees worth?,
Workforce, 80(2): 32.
http:/www.Eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrel
ations/dictionary/definitions/qualiy of work.htm,
accessed 27, June 2011.
Copyright of Journal of Contemporary Management Research is the property of Journal of Contemporary
Management Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.